Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482263You couldn't keep "omniscience" and "omnipotence" straight, even after I corrected you on it. Don't brag about how you're on top of things when you can't even keep that stuff straight when people point it out to you.

I might have been more "on top of it" if it were actually relevant. You've caught me, I'm human. If it had made a bit of diffrerence I would have said so. It didn't and still doesn't. Congratulations Mr. Perfect.

QuoteI did challenge you to. Do it, you fucking pretentious twit.

You got it you obnoxious douchebag. You are saying we all have to play our fantasy games the way you want us to or we're wrong. Your stance is not complicated, just pathetically retarded.

QuoteJohn is talking about a world in which there is a clear conception of what he calls "absolute good" and in which the Gods actively enforce this, and with Paladins and Druids who must uphold certain alignments. And to slay noncombatants in this world is not immoral (it would not cause a Paladin to fall). The players might have felt emotional turmoil, but the characters should not have based on what he claims. If they did, then it is simply because his moral theory is inadequate (a claim I've made numerous times).


The rest of your post is just butthurt. Go whine to someone who cares.

John was and is correct. However, it's extremely presumptuous of you to claim that his players shouldn't have felt anything, or their characters either. It's a fucking game you elitist cocksucker. A fucking GAME. We're not fucking post-docs here conducting fucking research you pretentious, shit-eating moron. It's a FANTASY GAME. absolutely none of your "rules" or "standards" have to apply to anyone else's game, and insisting they do does nothing but reveal you for the nasty, pathetic loser you are. Get a fucking real life if morality is so fucking important to you, stop trying to convince everyone else morality must be learned and practiced through a FUCKING GAME. The only butthurt around here is you whining about how nobody is playing by your moral rules, boo hoo.

Quote from: Imperator;482288He sees no difference because there is none. On both cases you obey because someone holds a huge power over you. Actually, in real world, most self - defined believers regularly disobey some or all their precepts, but they would surely obey an armed man. God is not very persuasive

The real world need not apply.

Quote from: Sigmund;482304Who asked Dray to leave the hobby? Are ya'all even capable of addressing something I've actually written? .
Who's being disingenuous?

You said it right (ok may not of Dray) , here.

QuoteI don't remember mentioning you specifically either, so anything you're reading out of my post is in your head, not my post

Who else could these "others" be? Didn't you give a lecture to Jibba on this very issue?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Sigmund;482305What part of "fantasy game" do you not understand? Who gives a fuck about the history of moral thought when pretending to play an elf that's killing pretend orcs?

But isn't this what this whole thread is about ? Moral reasoning (usage in plain English, lads) is why I don't use evil races in my games. It's why (like I told jibba) we don't play serial killers or any other kind of irredeemable evil types. It's why in Bren's example the PCs who were playing gangsters didn't execute their rival's daughter who was with him. It's why Morrow is interested in why people don't or won't use evil races in their games and of his use of psychopaths (or races based on them) in his or his interest in when Paladins fall from grace.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;482308You said it right (ok may not of Dray) , here.

Read it again. I simply made some suggestions. I didn't tell anyone to do anything. I try not to do that. I'm starting to think none of you in this thread are capable of addressing what is actually being written.

QuoteWho else could these "others" be? Didn't you give a lecture to Jibba on this very issue?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: FrankTrollman;477816No. He is saying that when you create the parameters of the world in the game or story you are creating, that you are morally responsible for the moral truths your parameters advocate. If you make a story where hypotheses that would be morally objectionable are definitively true, then your story is morally objectionable on the same grounds.



-Frank

Quote from: Darwinism;478547They're not people if they're damned savages that I dislike! There's nothing wrong with this viewpoint!

The thing is that in dungeon crawls alignment means fuckall because my party = good and not my party = evil. But when you go into an actual campaign where you're pretending to be crusading good guys, or neutral mercenaries, or evil bent on self-profit, portraying things as Always Chaotic Evil is just a lazy way of giving the party a target that they can feel justified in killing at best. And at worst it's a way of branding an entire race as savages who hate civilization/goodness/AR FREEDOM.

No, I didn't. I have no problem not typing out every person's name in such a long thread when there actually are "others".

Quote from: Sigmund;482317Read it again. I simply made some suggestions. I didn't tell anyone to do anything. I try not to do that. I'm starting to think none of you in this thread are capable of addressing what is actually being written.

And this is any less elitist and one-true-wayist, how?

QuoteNo, I didn't. I have no problem not typing out every person's name in such a long thread when there actually are "others".

So who are these others?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;482316But isn't this what this whole thread is about ? Moral reasoning (usage in plain English, lads) is why I don't use evil races in my games. It's why (like I told jibba) we don't play serial killers or any other kind of irredeemable evil types. It's why in Bren's example the PCs who were playing gangsters didn't execute their rival's daughter who was with him

In my game that actually wasn't the case. They were just acting in character. They were gangsters, not child killers. I don't think any of us at the table were okay with people murdering a person in front of their child (not as bad as killing a child but still a very evil act in our opinions). But we were okay with this act in the game. We are fine with a disconnect between our own morals and our character's.

I think what is happening here is people are talking past each other at times. On the one hand people are making arguments about their own views regarding morality and what is theoretically possible, on another track you have people debating what is morally acceptable to include in a game, and on another you have people who aren't interested in either and just want something cool in their setting. My impression of Sigmund is he is saying he doesn't want the philosophical rigor employed by pseudo when he constructs his cosmology (build a cosmology around the gods, define good and evil around that, etc). I think Pseudo is saying he has a hard time buying into a setting if it falls apart under that kind of scrutiny. This is just a guess, it is a long thread and I could have missed a key detail. I don't think either one is wrong, they just want different things.

Quote from: David R;482316But isn't this what this whole thread is about ? Moral reasoning (usage in plain English, lads) is why I don't use evil races in my games. It's why (like I told jibba) we don't play serial killers or any other kind of irredeemable evil types. It's why in Bren's example the PCs who were playing gangsters didn't execute their rival's daughter who was with him. It's why Morrow is interested in why people don't or won't use evil races in their games and of his use of psychopaths (or races based on them) in his or his interest in when Paladins fall from grace.

Regards,
David R

If someone wants to build their D&D game around a moral dilemma, then there's nothing wrong with that, of course. However, the moral dilemma is most likely not actually present in the RAW and needs to be written in to the DM's setting/scenario. The OP, and others (see previous post) are contending this particular moral dilemma is, in fact, written into the RAW when it's actually not. The thread is about a mistaken reading of the rules. Morality is only the stick people are using to try and batter their opinions into the heads of everyone else.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;482320In my game that actually wasn't the case. They were just acting in character. They were gangsters, not child killers. I don't think any of us at the table were okay with people murdering a person in front of their child (not as bad as killing a child but still a very evil act in our opinions). But we were okay with this act in the game.

This is exactly what I meant. Distinctions were made. Something which was genre acceptable was not rejected out of hand simply because of real world personal views. But some lines will not be crossed. I doubt (from reading your post) your players would play child killers, even if it's just a '"fantasy game".

Regards,
David R

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;482320In my game that actually wasn't the case. They were just acting in character. They were gangsters, not child killers. I don't think any of us at the table were okay with people murdering a person in front of their child (not as bad as killing a child but still a very evil act in our opinions). But we were okay with this act in the game. We are fine with a disconnect between our own morals and our character's.

I think what is happening here is people are talking past each other at times. On the one hand people are making arguments about their own views regarding morality and what is theoretically possible, on another track you have people debating what is morally acceptable to include in a game, and on another you have people who aren't interested in either and just want something cool in their setting. My impression of Sigmund is he is saying he doesn't want the philosophical rigor employed by pseudo when he constructs his cosmology (build a cosmology around the gods, define good and evil around that, etc). I think Pseudo is saying he has a hard time buying into a setting if it falls apart under that kind of scrutiny. This is just a guess, it is a long thread and I could have missed a key detail. I don't think either one is wrong, they just want different things.

Mostly I agree Brendan, but where I object is when Pseudo, JJ, Darwinism, and Frank have said that people who include irredeemable evil monsters in their games are lazy worldbuilders, or in the case of Frank somehow complicit in the furthering of racism. They also include the implication that being a lazy worldbuilder (which in the case of irredeemable monsters is demonstrably false anyway) makes one somehow "less-than". This is what I object to most. It's not only wrong, it's elitist and pretentious.

Quote from: CRKrueger;482276"Magical"? Your atheism is showing if you can't even say Divine.  You see no difference between a command given by a man who could kill you and a god?  You need to use your imagination a bit more.

Since all you've done is assert that there's a difference without explaining what that difference is, why don't you try to explain it?

QuoteProtip: They were wrong about that, weren't they?  Our moral theories evolved in an intellectual context where there was no God to confirm or deny any supposition or theory put forth by man.

It's quite easy to say that the existence of a god is not rationale enough to obey him when there is no god.  Moral theorists and philosophers can believe in god all they want to, however, none of them ever had god's confirmation or were ever struck dead for claiming he doesn't matter.

Once again, you are wrong. The moral theorists and philosophers of the past did believe that there were tons of confirming events for the existence of the Gods and/or God, and that people _were_ struck dead for claiming he didn't exist.

You don't appear to understand that people in the classical and medieval eras saw what they considered to be the real signs of the gods / God's work in the world. They weren't "waiting for a sign" like a modern believer.

QuoteSomehow, I think a real god just might make a wee little bit of difference in how people think about morality and how a culture's morality may have developed.

Sure, they would end up like the Jews. The Jewish god asked the Jews to do all sorts of terrible shit (like commit genocide on the Amalekites), and has been chewed out on a couple of occasions by Jews and Gentiles according to the source text. The Jewish god is very specifically the source of the Law, not necessarily a good guy. The Jews obey him because their ancestors made a bargain that they are sworn to follow.

QuoteThinking that there is no god, yet there is an inherent absolute moral Truth, is simply religion by another name, and one that may not apply to every cosmology.

It's really not the same thing at all, unless you want to explain to me how "When considering the morality of an action you should ask yourself, what would be the consequences if this action were universalised?" which is an actual example of an absolute moral principle.

Quote from: Sigmund;482321Morality is only the stick people are using to try and batter their opinions into the heads of everyone else.

Not really. I don't see that. Like I said, there are some inbuilt moral assumptions in the game (D&D), although I don't think Dray has any real understanding of them. Like I said the conversation has moved on. The question here has become ,I think, which was no doubt sparked off by Dray's post are gamers attitudes towards evil races in their games.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;482322This is exactly what I meant. Distinctions were made. Something which was genre acceptable was not rejected out of hand simply because of real world personal views. But some lines will not be crossed. I doubt (from reading your post) your players would play child killers, even if it's just a '"fantasy game".

Regards,
David R

Sorry, I misunderstood your initial post. Yes that pretty much sums it up. I don't think anyone in my group would be comfortable with the child killer thing. In fact I brought up that example because it came pretty close to that line. For the most part we are fine with ultra violent gallows humor when it is suited to the type of game (and mafia is a perfect fit), but there are still lines we wouldn't cross. Some of them arbitrary (I mentioned earlier playing a mobster was fine, but playing a terrorist would be a problem).

Quote from: David R;482322This is exactly what I meant. Distinction were made. Something which was genre acceptable was not rejected out of hand simply because of real world personal views. But somethings lines will not be crossed. I doubt (from reading your post) your players would play child killers, even if it's just a '"fantasy game".

Regards,
David R

Dude, what you're not getting is that it's ok for you to hold your view. It's ok to be uncomfortable about some of these ideas. Even John described his group as being less than comfortable about their pretend goblin slaughter. But having that view doesn't give anyone the right to condemn other's for not sharing that view. It's not somehow wrong to include irredeemable orcs, or evil non-coms, in a game of D&D. The game itself neither supports or condemns either approach, it simply provides the tools to do either, and then expects the DM and players to take those tools and make the game their own. What Frank doesn't seem to get is that the game doesn't have to rigidly define good and evil, and is better for not doing so. Each group or DM can interpret those for him/her self. that his experience tells him groups can't do this is, honestly, his problem. the groups I've been in have had no problem with this at all. As for Dray, he is seeing the phantoms of his own mind in D&D... it's shit that's not there.

We all get it. You would not enjoy a game that includes irredeemable evil or orc babies. Peregrin wouldn't either, but at least he admitted it's his and his group's own preferences, and not some moral rule. He remained open to being convinced, and agreed to think about it. That kind of dissenting opinion is the perfect one, IMO. he didn't belittle anyone else's PoV or opinions, he simply presented his own and then agreed to think about it. I think we're at the point where we all would be best served by doing the same.

Quote from: Sigmund;482323Mostly I agree Brendan, but where I object is when Pseudo, JJ, Darwinism, and Frank have said that people who include irredeemable evil monsters in their games are lazy worldbuilders, or in the case of Frank somehow complicit in the furthering of racism. They also include the implication that being a lazy worldbuilder (which in the case of irredeemable monsters is demonstrably false anyway) makes one somehow "less-than". This is what I object to most. It's not only wrong, it's elitist and pretentious.

I don't think it is lazy worldbuilding. Personally it isn't my cup of tea because I want races and cultures in my setting to be more historically rooted. Different kinds of settings call for different levels of texture. But I don't think my real world knowledge of history, religion or philsophy always has to factor into a game setting. I don't expect the GM to be a renaissance man who brings thousands of years of accumulated knowledge to the setting design table. I just want a fun and enjoyable setting. If the economic system wouldn't work in real life, that isn't going to interfere with my enjoyment (in fact it a much more interesting game world than one produced by an economist like Ben Stein---though I suspect he is secretly one of the world's greatest GMs). By the same token if the world's cosmology and morality have a few holes that  philosopher could find, it isn't going to ruin the game for me.